A interview with Tom Phillips Fe 17, 2014
TOM: To answer those seven charges, theyre intact. The wording may be a little bit slightly different to what I had originally put, and may not be —— certainly when that goes forward to the indictment stage some of that wording will be, I think, improved. Because some of that wording was not my original wording, and I dont think it was tight as it should be. But anyway that will be better done at the indictment stage by trained prosecutors.
SCOTT: Im glad you clarified that, because that was a question I had. So do you have any indication when the indictment stage will be and where does it go from here? I know theres a hearing on March 14th.
TOM: March 14th, thats right. Now let me just —[audio problems]— Steven Bloor and Christopher Ralph, two names appear on that — two summonses, individual names. Now that caught —— I was faced with a situation there, that I will admit to here, that was a —— during this process Ive always maintained the victims of this crime are thousands of individuals in England and Wales and also the U.K. treasury, representing the British tax payer. They are the victims in this crime. And I was only seeking one summons to rectify that.
The district judge, again looking at the wider issue of fraud, wanted named individuals. At the time I was asked to provide one individual as an example of the thousands I was talking about. At that time I contacted Steven Bloor and Christopher Ralph to see if they would be willing to putting written submissions and if necessary to attend court under oath to represent those submissions. I gave them, so they had access to make these things, and my understanding was that was just to demonstrate to the district judge that there were people out there. It was never my intention that they would part of this case other than during trial such individuals could be called to confirm these things.
It then became a final point between us that the judge insisted on named individuals. Now I was then faced with the fact that OK I can go out and get hundreds or thousands of named individuals that will take a little bit of time plus I will have to disclose whats been going on here, because I cant just ask people. Steven Bloor and Christopher Ralph I could trust to keep this all confidential. But if I suddenly wanted to have say a thousand victims, thats going to get out and theres no way I can contain that.
I also pointed out at the time that the law did not require named victims, and the Home Office which is maybe like your Justice Department but gives guidance on these things to the judiciary has actually commented on this Fraud Act 2006 and they have said quite explicitly that there doesnt even have to be one victim, because the offenses that are alleged only require that the person making the false representations INTENDED, dishonestly intended —— dishonestly made the statements and secondly they INTENDED to make a financial gain for themselves or for someone else, or to cause a loss to someone else, or to cause an exposure to the risk of loss to someone else.
So even if someone had made false representations in England and Wales and there wasnt one victim because no one fell for the con, if you like or whatever was being represented, they would still be guilty of a criminal act under this legislation. So I maintain to this day we dont have to name any victims in these summonses or in this indictment.
Now I argued that -— let me finish on that -— I was then faced with the consequence of either accept the summons as they are or to appeal that decision of the district judge, which I was quite entitled to do and take that to the high court for them to decide on the law, but that would involve meaning another four months delay. I chose the option of lets get it on with process now and then well look at that kind of thing as it moves forward and into the indictment stage.
So to answer your question about March the 14th thats a date now, thats not something that would be rescheduled. I mean there would have to be some serious reasons for rescheduling that whether it was ill health or whatever. And that would be an application to the court. This is on the listing for the 14th.
Regarding the seriousness of the summonses people are saying, and again I wish Mr. Monson would actually take proper legal advice and listen to that, instead of getting the church PR machine. Ive seen an email from Michael Purdy to the PR people in the church which basically says, Kill this story at all costs. Kill this story at all costs.
Now I would think that anyone thats faced with a summons, especially in consideration of the twelfth Article of Faith, would actually take proper legal advice and find out, if at all, they might be guilty of such a thing. And if they are, address it seriously, not just dismissively say, There is nothing here, these are bizarre allegations and were not even Mr. Monson will not even attend.
Now let me get that quite clear to him if he does not attend, just read the bottom of the summons if hes got that far. If he does not attend then an arrest warrant will be applied for and issued for him.
Now I would think that anyone thats faced with a summons, especially in consideration of the twelfth Article of Faith, would actually take proper legal advice and find out, if at all, they might be guilty of such a thing (Tom Phillips Feb 17, 2014)
THE ARTICLES OF FAITH
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
History of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 535541
12.We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. (Joseph Smith, March, 1842)
______________________________________